The address by Prime Minister A.K. Cajander on the 23rd of November
1939, at Helsinki Fair Hall, at a national defence celebration arranged
by Finnish private enterprise owners

The people of Finland stands in front of an unexpected incident. The
events followed in a quick succession and the whole sequence of events
emerged as a total surprise for the majority of the Finnish people.

It is hardly a wrong conclusion if one, trying to interpret the
present flow of events around the world, sees it as an expansionist
tendency of the great powers, a constant and understandable phenomenon
in world history irrespective of whether you consider it being
justified or not.

The Tsarist state had in its final days a strong westward drive
down to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. The independent status of
Finland was an obstacle to this goal and this was the motive to end the
internal home rule, the autonomous status of Finland. The years of
oppression in Finland derived from that. This policy was essentially
different from the benevolent policy employed by the previous Emperors,
especially Alexander I and II who therefore enjoyed an undivided love
of the Finnish people. This new policy embittered and strained the
relationship between Finland and Russia to the extreme.

History seldom follows a straightforward course. The great war
crushed the intentions of the Tsarist regime. On its ruins the Union of
Socialist Soviet Republics was born. It recognised nations' rights to
self-determination and it has on all occasions assured its willingness
to maintain friendly relations to her neighbors. Even the independence
of Finland was recognised by her.

Thus the end of the World War also brought independence to
Finland, but not without pain. The new situation was stabilised only
after a bloody campaign, during which Germany gave Finland strong
support which is not forgotten in Finland. Equally unforgettable is the
support given by the Western Powers and America to stabilise the
independent status of Finland. That was followed by twenty happy years
of peace and construction, years only seldom shaded by dark shadows.

A little over two months ago the Soviet Union approached the
Finnish Cabinet making certain propositions which were explained as
aiming to improve the security of St. Petersburg or Leningrad and at
strengthening the friendly relationship between Finland and the Soviet
Union.

These proposals were not completely unexpected. The forthcoming
talks, concentrating on requirements to improve Leningrad's security,
were anticipated in private conversations with some members of the
Finnish cabinet a considerable time earlier.

As we all well remember there were negotiations between the
Western Powers and the Soviet Union to accomplish a pact. The issue of
Leningrad's security - concerning the so-called indirect aggression and
other similar subjects - were discussed in such a manner which could
have threatened the independence of Finland and the Baltic countries.
The government of England, however, did not support these attempts.
This is remembered here with sincere gratefulness. There was no outcome
in the negotiations which also caused the specific issue concerning
Finland to fall through.

A new decisive turn of events in Europe and even in the whole world took place when Germany and the Soviet Union concluded a non-aggression pact which in some respect even exceeded the regular scope of such agreements.

The pact came like a bolt from the blue. In Finland, however, it
was not a complete surprise. As early as 1937 a remark was made by a
prominent foreign authority about a possibility of the Soviet Union and
Germany concluding a pact perhaps in the near future. But the very
timing of this non-aggression pact was, I guess, a complete surprise to
all of us.

In certain Finnish circles this new agreement was greeted with
considerable hopes. Expectations were that this relaxation of
contradictions, previously a prevailing feature between the Soviet
Union and Germany, would have a calming effect on tension in the Baltic
Sea and the countries around it. This presumption, however, disappeared
soon. In Finnish domestic politics, this pact has a significant effect
on the agendas of the political parties. It destroyed the assumption
that the Soviet Union and Germany were ideologically incompatible and
as a consequence of this all kinds of political speculations based on
this contradiction were crushed. You can say that this pact thus
strengthened the basis for a domestic concordance in Finland.

The non-aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union
was immediately followed by the war between Germany and Poland which
itself ensued a new war between the Western Powers and Germany. A
universal conflagration was thus ignited.

The Oslo countries, Finland included, declared themselves to be
absolutely neutral in this campaign between the great powers. Despite
their neutrality Finland and other Oslo countries suffer continuously
and heavily from the economic consequences of the great war.
Furthermore, especially Holland, Belgium and Finland but Switzerland,
too, have been able to keep their neutrality only by maintaining an
extremely efficient guard for their defence.

In the opposite case, their declaration of neutrality would scarcely have been respected.

When Poland was near to collapse the Soviet Union marched its
troops into eastern Poland and occupied it. Simultaneously the Soviet
People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs made it known to the governments
of Finland and the Baltic countries, as well as to other countries,
that it would conduct a policy of neutrality towards them.

The defection of a Polish submarine
to Tallinn (the capital of Estonia) was at first brought out as an
excuse for proposals made by the Soviet Union to Estonia, which then
finally resulted in allocating important military bases to the Soviet
Union in Paldiski (Baltischport), Saaremaa (Ösel) and Hiiumaa
(Dagö). In quick succession similar events followed in Latvia and
Lithuania. These three vigorous Baltic countries with their own
charasteristic old cultures and a splendid future ahead were overnight
turned into more or less dependencies of the Soviet Union.

Especially depressing for us, the Finns, is the fact that among
these countries faced by this unfavorable fate is the State of Estonia,
our dear fraternal nation. A follow-up was also the mass departure of
Germans from the Baltics where they over a time period of 600 years had
made history and have loftily carried the national flag of the German
stock.

It was to be expected, when thinking about the previous conduct
by the Soviet Union, that she would make similar proposals also to the
Finnish goverment. It should be stated, however, that the previously
expressed reasons for Soviet intentions towards Finland had, at least
in two counts, disappeared. The only great power which could have
earlier been a potential threat to Leningrad - well, in that case
presumably along the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland - namely
Germany, has concluded a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union,
which means that there exists no threat against the Soviet Union and
Leningrad from there - without considering the overall present
importance of Leningrad to the Soviet Union. And the new Soviet naval
and air bases in Liepaja (Libau), Ventpils (Windau), Hiiumaa, Saaremaa
and Paldiski permit, as disclosed by the Soviets, the Soviet Union to
rule the Baltic Sea and thus the Gulf of Finland and up to the Gulf's
farthest recess in front of Leningrad.

Judging from the present facts, all arguments about threats to
Leningrad from the Finnish territory are very difficult to understand.

A request for negotiations with the Soviet government was
received on the 5th of October. For over a month friendly discussions
were carried out between the Finnish and Soviet Cabinets concerning
concrete political issues of certain territorial exchanges to improve
the security of Leningrad.

The Cabinet of Finland, after discussing with representatives
of parliamentary groups and after consulting the highest military
command, yielded to Soviet demands in order to maintain good neighborly
relations so far as it could, as a representative of an independent
nation, to increase the security of a foreign metropolis but without
sacrificing Finland's own national security.

However, the Soviets have made propositions which are very far
away from those which can considered as prerequisites in securing
Leningrad. If they were accepted they would have offended Finland's
neutrality and damaged her opportunities for self-defence: it would
have meant severing the southern defence line of Finland at two of its
most important points and handing over its first-class fortifications
to a foreign power. Thus it would had resulted in severe decrease in
the security of Finland. Such proposals were unacceptable to the
Finnish government.

Because of a lack of common ground for the negotiations they
have been interrupted for the moment. This is deplorable because
Finland sincerely wants to maintain good relations to all her neighbors
and sincerely wants to strengthen these relationships when it does not
endanger Finland's own vital interests.

Our nation's conscience is clear. She knows that her cause is
right and she knows that things are duly conducted. In making her
points of view known Finland has not needed or received instructions
from foreign countries. Finland has shown towards the Soviet Union
friendliness and compliancy up to such a limit which only can be
crossed by weakening Finland's own national security.

Finland will not submit herself to the role of a vassal
country. We will not yield to this by someone waging a nerve war or
trying to exhaust us or doing the contrary, by offering temptations.
Finland will peacefully, with open eyes and determined mind, observe
the events in the west and in the east, and as a peaceloving country,
which always appreciates good neighborly relations, is at any times
ready to continue the negotiations on a basis which does not risk the
vital interests of Finland or her national values. No further
concessions can be attained especially now when Finland herself gains
nothing from these territorial exchanges.

Finland is convinced that it is advantageous to the real
interests of the Soviet Union that she has as a neighbor a nation,
whose loyalty it can trust in all circumstances.

The global situation continues as tense, and this makes Finland
among many other neutral countries to keep a considerable amount of men
in arms as protectors of neutrality and also be otherwise prepared.

The time for the first enthusiastic unanimity is gradually
over. Everyday activities start again to gain ground. It is necessary
to restore the regular ways of living. It is of no use to be constantly
prepared for something unexpected but, on the other hand, we should at
any time be prepared to adjust our efforts if the situation demands
that. The present situation may continue for a long time. We have to
accustom ourselves to live and work in these altered conditions.
Figuratively speaking, we must learn to plough carrying rifles on our
backs.

The industrial production, which to some extent was interrupted
in the beginning of this tense period, has to be restored as fully as
possible in this changed situation taking, of course, into account the
altered commercial demand and difficulties in obtaining necessary raw
materials. Both the economical and other activities have to be adapted
with greatest accuracy to substantiate the full use of available
opportunities in the new conditions. At present the cabinet should
restrict its interference in the economical life only to that which is
unavoidable in our situation.

The return to everyday life should not imply that one's spirits
should be left to disappear. We have to maintain the same high
enthusiasm which has become very well manifested when young men
openheartedly now join the military service, or when hundreds of
thousands of women help the reservists and their relatives, or when the
defence bonds are subscribed with unexpected intensity, and in the
warm-hearted donations given by private citizens and by a multitude of
organisations to various apt purposes. Even in the unimpassionate
everyday life that, what is the most essential to the enthusiasm - a
devoted patriotic spirit - must stand strong. The patriotic unanimity
should not be weakened. Along with this, all that causes discontent,
disappointment or mental depression should be avoided and removed.

The danger is all but over. In our continent on both sides of
the Rhine and the North Sea an unprecedented rise in tension is
witnessed. The time for its outbreak has not yet come but enormous
forces are concentrated as a preparation for that. The exact time for
the outbreak is not known but nobody can sincerely believe that this
leads to nothing. And when the tension in its time once explodes, its
remote effects can be felt far away.

There are certain elements in the society who try to sow the
seeds of dissension among us, especially at the grass root level.
Beware of these elements! Their real effects are so insignificant that
no factual relevance can be attributed to them. But abroad their
significance can be exaggerated and thus be used to harm our country.

We have to keep together - as a unified nation - like we did at the
time of our first challenge, as unanimous as a democratic nation
relying on its free will can ever be. The spirits born from our ordeals
should and will stand the hardships, too. But even at that moment when
an immediate danger is over we have to stay together. All in all we are
a small nation and the stability of our international status depends
decisively on our unanimity.

The world attention has focused on us without our own active
influence. We have been met with a large scale of sympathy between
nations. This state of affairs obliges us. Let us make everybody know
that we are worthy of the sympathy the world has shown to us in both
speeches and deeds.

But first of all let us be worthy of the challenge set upon us.

Every Finnish citizen has his own guard post and everyone is
expected to stay alert at his post without defying anyone but firmly
defending the rights of the Finnish nation.

We are obliged to this because of our history, we are obliged to this because of our nation's future.

Pravda gave an answer to Cajander's speech in an article "A Buffoon Holding the Post of Prime Minister". This text in Russian.Translation by Pauli Kruhse. Placenames in parentheses added by the translator.